Physics of the Ballistic Pressure Wave

[Mr_Moore]

The proof of scientific work is in the ability for others to repeat the work.

Michael Courtney

This is also the basis for the non-negatable hypothesis being invalid on its face - at least for scientists.

If I offer an hypothesis that can be proven wrong, it is a negatable hypothesis.

For example I might make the assertion: “nitric acid, sulfuric acid and Glycerin make nitro glycerin”. Anyone can check that out by mixing the 3 chemicals and seeing what happens. (I would not recommend it as that DOES make nitro and it is an exothermic reaction which means it generates heat and subsequently explodes.)

If I assert that if we kill ourselves we will be transported to the tale of the Hale Bop comet – like the goofy Heavens Gate guys did – that is not disprovable. It is also an example of a non-negatable hypothesis. To bad the Heaven’s Gate crew did not know of its invalidity!

 

[JohnKSa]

Shear Stress,

See how he responded to my inquiry about him doing ballistics research on fetuses that suddenly became unborn deer fetuses in his reply.

I read what he posted and what you posted and what he replied. I'm not sure why you think it changed. He clearly said they were shooting "does" as is reflected in the quote in your reply. That made it pretty clear to me what they were talking about.

Or maybe look at the backflips he had to do after I asked how exactly he was going to tell if a submerged mammal was incapacitated.

I read your response and his reply. I didn't see any backflips, the explanation in his reply was clear and detailed.

he offers nothing in the way of published, verifiable data to back up his claims and hides behind a bizarre excuse that, if it was true, could be used by ninety percent of the researchers in the biomedical, biomechanics, and pharmaceutical fields

I don't know where you work, but everything I do or generate at work belongs to either my company or the organization they are contracted to. I can talk about what I do, but I can no more make it available on the internet than I could give you a company car from where I work.

I think you have already made up your mind and that is coloring not only HOW you interpret what is said, but even the way you read his posts--e.g. the comment about deer fetuses where his comments were clear but you were in such haste to discredit him that you failed to read what he said, not only in HIS post but also in the quote you added to YOUR post.

 

[Shear_stress]

explanation in his reply was clear and detailed

Yes it was. The operative word is "reply". He doesn't feel the need to explain his experiments until challenged.

I don't know where you work, but everything I do or generate at work belongs to either my company or the organization they are contracted to. I can talk about what I do, but I can no more make it available on the internet than I could give you a company car from where I work.

I actually work in an academic environment, so I have a basis for comparison. Academia thrives on openness. Most professors where I work have a website, but all departments post contact information for all staff and faculty. All labs and research centers on campus do as well. These websites contain scads of peer reviewed abstracts you can reference. Scientists are proud of their work, and do not try to hide it. In order to have received funding in the first place, a professor will have to have some kind of academic track record. Michael does, though the last entry was nine years ago, and in a field that was not all that germaine to ballistics.

If someone claims to be a scientist working for a certain research group for the last four years but this group has published nothing during that time, alarm bells start to go off for me. If the research center cannot at all be found with a Google search, alarm bells start to go off. If the only current data I can get is a reference to a photo posted on Glocktalk, alarm bells start to go off. If the person posting this information has a long and colorful history on internet newsgroups (feel free to search Google Groups yourself), alarm bells start to go off.

I have no agenda. I really don't care much about ballistics. However, the suspicions I have raised are valid, and are simply not being addressed.

 

[Michael Courtney]

I actually work in an academic environment, so I have a basis for comparison. Academia thrives on openness.

The acedemic institution where I am employed as a Physics professor is so anti-gun so as not to allow any gun-related activity on campus or in any institutional-related activity, including research. Colleagues have complained loudly about pictures of my children next to the deer they have killed on my office window, and a negative comment made by a parent regarding a seminar I gave on deer hunting at the college made it into my annual review.

Faculty are encouraged to participate in public service and research, yet I have been told by my superiors that neither my ballistics research nor my role as a Hunter Education instructor and NRA Basic Pistol instructor will be viewed in a positive light if I mention them in the public service areas of my annual assessment. Maybe I should get a job at a local college that actually offers a CCW class!

These considerations combined with funding source requirements for non-disclosure have caused the research group to keep the project separate from our academic institutions. If the funds were administered by the college grant office, the source of funding would easily be revealed. If the research were an institutional activity, I would have already been fired for possessing a firearm during an institutional activity.

Researchers in many fields are not completely open, even in academic environments. If you think the researchers in quantum cryptography are being completely open, you are severely misled. They are showing enough of their research to make for good public relations, but if you start asking the right questions, you'll hit a brick wall in the informational flow. In addition, researchers hoping to maintain a competitive advantage often keep some of their cards close to their chest. Sometimes they are protecting some sort of marketing advantage from potential competition (alliances between academia and business are growing rapidly). At other times researchers keep information tightly held simply to maintain a competitive advantage relative to other research groups with regard to grant proposals.

Scientists are proud of their work, and do not try to hide it.

Who's hiding anything? Our work in in preparation for publication. Sufficient details will be published to allow adaquate peer-review and other researchers to repeat our results.

In order to have received funding in the first place, a professor will have to have some kind of academic track record. Michael does, though the last entry was nine years ago, and in a field that was not all that germaine to ballistics.

I haven't heard many people ascribe to your opinion that Physics is not germain to ballistics.

I have significant published work in the areas of wave dynamics and statistics. Did you miss the potential application of wave dynamics to the ballistics issues under consideration? Are you aware that there has been considerable debate regarding the statistical validity of certain works in the ballistics field? Why is so strange that being qualified to teach college level statistics might be regarded as important in the pursuit of ballistics research?

I was out of academia for eight years working in engineering. Most of that time I was working in wireless communications for Cisco Systems. Once again, wave propagation and statistics were a big part of my work. Proprietary interests prevented publication of the results and methods developed during that time, but the things I leared are important in the current projects.

Other scientists in the group make up for my areas of weakness. One of our scientists is a Biomechanical Engineer with a PhD from Harvard University who has published a long list of peer-reviewed papers on the failure of living tissues, has been internationally recognized as a scientist, and has also received a prestigious fellowship from the National Science Foundation and worked as a research scientist for the Cleveland Clinic. Most research groups in ballistics would salivate at the thought of having this kind of expertise and qualifications in their group.

I should also mention that our interests go beyond terminal ballistics and encompass internal ballistics, external ballistics, and forensic ballistics as well.

Regarding internal ballistics, a recent project reveals that reducing barrel friction can increase bullet energy of most service cartridges by 100 ft-lbs. A member of our group also had independently designed a smokeless muzzleloader shortly before Savage came out with theirs.

Regarding external ballistics, we recently presented results and submitted a paper for measurement of bullet velocity with a PC soundcard. There's nothing earth shattering here, but we're hoping one of the chronograph manufacturers will productize the technique. We're extending the acoustic technique to measurement of ballistic coefficients, and we're working on a project to expose the exaggerations by many bullet manufacturers.

In the area of forensic ballistics, we are improving acoustic methods for identifying the location of a gunshot from an audio recording of the event. We are also developing new methods for determining the location of the target from the sound of the bullet hitting the target. This is an outgrowth of our pressure wave work because the pressure wave creates a very loud noise when it reaches the surface. We believe we will be able to develop acoustic methods to distinguish between misses, first hits to the chest, subsequent hits to the chest, first hits to the abdomen, subsequent hits to the abdoman, hits to the limbs, hits to the major bone structure, etc. We're also working to identify the RF signature of a gun as it is fired. The high temperature plasma present when a gun is discharged releases electromagnetic radiation, and the metal parts act like an antenna. This RF radiation can show up as interference in an audio or video recording of a shooting event. These techniques will be useful for reconstructing an increasing number of shooting events fights as audio surveillance becomes more widely spread.

Our interest in forensic ballistics feeds back to our interest in terminal ballistics as the availability of techniques for more accurately reconstructing the time elements of gun fights will allow for more accurate testing of incapacitation theories.

If you were assembling a research group to tackle the above-mentioned problems, wouldn't you want a person with a strong physics, wave, and statistics background?

The most serious doubts from our funding sources had nothing to do with our professional qualifications, but rather with our will and ability to bear attacks from the animal rights fanatics and the entrenched ballistics interests, as well as our will and ability to abide by the non-disclosure agreement.

Michael Courtney

 

[JohnKSa]

Academia thrives on openness.

To some extent yes, to some extent no. People publish when they finish a product. It's not uncommon for a person to be reticent to discuss all the details of their research prior to publication. Particularly if there are extenuating circumstances. Ballistics experiments with live animals would certainly qualify as extenuating circumstances in most circles.

I have a basis for comparison

What research projects have you been associated with that involved live animal experimentation in conjunction with firearms? This seems like a pretty unique type of research--two major hotbuttons for radical groups. I know of no other group doing this kind of research and of no other group who has done this kind of research in the last 80 years or so. I don't think that many people have much of a basis for comparison.

He doesn't feel the need to explain his experiments until challenged.

So, you think that he should sum up four years of work in a couple of one page posts on the internet without leaving any explanations out? Seems unreasonable to me.

However, the suspicions I have raised are valid, and are simply not being addressed.

I would say that they have been addressed, but that you are not satisfied--more to the point--that you refuse to be satisfied.

 

[Shear_stress]

I know of no other group doing this kind of research and of no other group who has done this kind of research in the last 80 years or so.

This ought to tell you something.

So, you think that he should sum up four years of work in a couple of one page posts on the internet without leaving any explanations out?

Not what I asked for. I have only asked (repeatedly) for another source outside of an internet forum. If you want to believe that Michael Courtney is the exception to the rule, and, unlike all the scientists I work with (who, by the way, are involved with live-animal research), is free from the obligation to offer any proof of the existence of current research or of a research group, you are welcome to.

 

[BigMak]

Michael,

Thank you for your reply to my post.

I'm interested in reading your published
findings, as well as any responses from
Dr. Richards or Mr. MacPherson, as I find
this field of study fascinating.

BigMak

 

[Borachon]

Yeah...I've always been curious. How does the body respond differently when you shoot someone that has 20% Blood Alchohol content? The fluid density is different for alcohol.

So..can you tell me how that works? Is it more effective...less?

And I was also curious why the ballastic pressure wave wasn't enough to blow blood out of the open veins of a dead pig when I was watching Mythbusters.

They shot a dead pig with different ammunition to see if it would HURL a body through the air like it does in movies when someone gets shot. It doesn't. The only bullet that moved it was a .12 gauge slug...and it only moved the pig half an inch.

But what I noticed was that no blood was blown out of it's open veins. Shouldn't it do that if a pressure wave is moving through it?

 

[JohnKSa]

IIRC, the pig had been dressed (cleaned). I believe that draining the blood is part of that process.

This ought to tell you something.

It tells me that it's about time someone did something in the field. And it's also beginning to make it clear why people don't...

 

[Borachon]

I believe that draining the blood is part of that process.

So does blood blow out of a body that hasn't been drained, but has open veins, when you shoot it?

 

[Michael Courtney]

Yeah...I've always been curious. How does the body respond differently when you shoot someone that has 20% Blood Alchohol content? The fluid density is different for alcohol.

There is no need to shoot someone with a 20% blood alcohol content; they are already dead.

And I was also curious why the ballastic pressure wave wasn't enough to blow blood out of the open veins of a dead pig when I was watching Mythbusters.

I'm not sure of the experimental set-up here.

But what I noticed was that no blood was blown out of it's open veins. Shouldn't it do that if a pressure wave is moving through it?

Connect a heavy rubber bladder (like a hot water bottle) full of water to a short length of rubber hose (to imitate an artery). If the rubber bladder is strong ehough not to split when you shoot it (you only get the two bullet holes, the bladder is otherwise left intact), the pressure wave will produce fluid shooting out of the hose. You can easily visualize the difference between high and low pressure wave loads in this manner.

The Strasbourg Goat Tests inserted a pressure sensor into the carotid artery of goats that were shot in the chest. This pressure sensor detected a pressure wave. Since this work was published anonymously, some in the field view it negatively, but we have been able to repeat some aspects of their work.

Michael Courtney

 

[JohnKSa]

...the tripe and sophistry being peddled in this thread.

Strong words--could you elaborate on the basis of your objection to this material? I'm interested to hear your analysis of the science and mathematics of pressure waves as presented earlier in this thread.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Originally Posted by jc2
...the tripe and sophistry being peddled in this thread.

I would also like to hear about any faults you have found in the initial post of the thread describing the Physics of the ballistic pressure wave.

Waiting . . .

Michael Courtney

 

[Shear_stress]

We believe that the pressure wave is responsible for this hemorrhaging, though we cannot rule out the temporary stretch cavity for some regions. However, the 5” diameter of hemorrhaging of the muscular tissue surrounding the entrance wound is much larger than the expected TSC at this point. This is the effect that hunters associate with high-velocity rifle bullet wounds and refer to as bloodshot meat. Since the pressure wave is more strongly directed backward than the TSC, it makes sense that this hemorrhaging is due to the pressure wave.

We also observed mild hemorrhaging along the abdominal walls and rear rib cage on the right side. This is the area directly opposite from the entrance wound, but considerably rearward from the point where the bullet exited the rib cage. Thus this region was out of reach of both the permanent crush cavity and the temporary stretch cavity, and it seems that the most likely cause of the hemorrhaging was the pressure wave.

Here is your original post with emphasis added. The physics are: I shot a deer as part of a youth hunt. The wounding I measured is different than predicted by Fackler. Ergo: a pressure wave responsible for the damage.

That's your argument. Most of the physics you have shown here have been to prove and describe the existence of a pressure wave. The existence of a pressure wave is not in doubt and the equations are what they are. However, you make frequent references to your "experiment", but have never actually described a systematic experimental procedure and a process in which you actually *prove* anything. The above is simply a declaration, not a proof. You claim to be debating the merits of an experiment, yet shift the debate to physics no one has questioned.

Besides, what makes you think that if your results are different from those predicted by Fackler or whoever, than the mechanism of wounding is automatically different? You have so far neglected any mention of a null hypotheses, what kind of animals are you using, if deer, why your results seem to coincide with hunting season, how many deer you're using, what breed they are (wildtype, or engineered hybrid), references to any papers showing that deer wounding is a good model for human wounding, your experimental groups, your control, the p and power of each result, your rationale for using muzzleloaders to model centerfire handgun rounds, what calibers you are looking at and why, how you define "pulverized" tissue, how you actually measure the intensity of a pressure wave in live animals that are apparently free to run after being shot, your actual predictions of the pressure wave in a wound, the kind of equipment you are using, what journal you plan to publish your work in, the publication date, how you will to continue to work at your apparently anti-gun college after your paper is published, how you will be free from the scourge of animal rights activists *after* your work is published, etc., etc. Again, this is on top of your group having existed for four years without producing any publications and being so secretive that no reference to it can be found.

You claim to be a scientist, make repeated mention of your qualifications, and have started two threads discussing your research, yet have not actually addressed any of these issues. You invite others to reproduce your work, and yet have not described how to do so systematically. So, I have a last question: where's the beef?

Edited to add:

You are continually misrepresenting what I have written. I wonder if it is a reading comprehenion problem, or intellectual dishonesty. Earlier you tried to claim that I hadn't mentioned female deer. Now you are trying to claim that I shot a deer as a part of a youth hunt. This is incorrect.

.40 Caliber Pressure Wave Effects

We had an opportunity this weekend to perform an informal field necropsy on a 180 lb 7 pt buck shot with a 135 Grain .40 caliber Nosler JHP at approximately 1350 FPS impact velocity. Though fired from a muzzleloader, this impact velocity closely approximates the impact velocity of the same bullet fired from a .40 S&W. This load produces one of the larger pressure waves available from JHP ammo in 9mm, .40S&W, .45 ACP, or .357 Sig. This buck was shot during a special youth-only hunt, and the young hunter was gracious enough to allow a couple of scientists access to his deer.

So yeah, you didn't shoot the deer. My mistake. However, your "results" are still from gutting a deer during a youth hunt.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Here is your original post with emphasis added. The physics are: I shot a deer as part of a youth hunt.

You are continually misrepresenting what I have written. I wonder if it is a reading comprehenion problem, or intellectual dishonesty. Earlier you tried to claim that I hadn't mentioned female deer. Now you are trying to claim that I shot a deer as a part of a youth hunt. This is incorrect.

I clearly wrote:

This buck was shot during a special youth-only hunt, and the young hunter was gracious enough to allow a couple of scientists access to his deer.

The buck was shot by a youth hunter, not by me. Yet here you are (making me out to be an outlaw by shooting a buck during a "youth-only" hunt) misrepresenting the original post on the other thread. In addition, the original post on the other thread was about observed wounding. The original post on this thread is about the Physics. I made no representation in the initial post of the other thread to the effect of "the physics are: I shot a deer . . ." The Physics is described in the first post of this thread. The wounding is described in the first post of the other thread.

The wounding I measured is different than predicted by Fackler. Ergo: a pressure wave responsible for the damage.

I was clear that some of the wounding we observed might be interpreted as resulting from the TSC. However, we also observed wounding beyond the reach or either the TSC or PCC. The only ballistic effect that reaches beyond the TSC and the PCC is the ballistic pressure wave, and the only wounding we ascribe with certainty to be caused by the pressure wave is that beyond the reach of the TSC and PCC.

What we actually observed is a truncated cone region of pulverized tissue with a diameter of 1.5” on the entrance side, and gradually narrowing to 0.58” on the exit side of the rib cage. The actual volume of this truncated cone of pulverized tissue is 12.18 cubic inches, or nearly 4 times the volume predicted by the PCC-only view of wounding via handgun bullets.

In addition, we observed a region of severe to moderate hemorrhaging along the wound channel that was 5” in diameter at entrance, narrowed to roughly 3” in diameter at the medial surface of the left lung and gradually shrank in size to merge with the bullet diameter where the bullet exited the rib cage. This region of hemorrhaging has an approximately truncated cone shape with a volume of 119.3 cubic inches.

We believe that the pressure wave is responsible for this hemorrhaging, though we cannot rule out the temporary stretch cavity for some regions. However, the 5” diameter of hemorrhaging of the muscular tissue surrounding the entrance wound is much larger than the expected TSC at this point. This is the effect that hunters associate with high-velocity rifle bullet wounds and refer to as bloodshot meat. Since the pressure wave is more strongly directed backward than the TSC, it makes sense that this hemorrhaging is due to the pressure wave.

We also observed mild hemorrhaging along the abdominal walls and rear rib cage on the right side. This is the area directly opposite from the entrance wound, but considerably rearward from the point where the bullet exited the rib cage. Thus this region was out of reach of both the permanent crush cavity and the temporary stretch cavity, and it seems that the most likely cause of the hemorrhaging was the pressure wave.

That's your argument. Most of the physics you have shown here have been to prove and describe the existence of a pressure wave. The existence of a pressure wave is not in doubt and the equations are what they are.

To my knowledge, the only published equations regarding the pressure resulting from a bullet impact are derived from a misapplication of Bernoulli.

If you are aware of the development of the equations presented in the "Physics of the Pressure Wave" being previously published by someone else, I would dearly appreciate a reference to the article, because it should be referenced in our papers. The equations are indeed correct, but to my knoweldge, they have not been correctly applied to the ballistic pressure wave until now.

However, you make frequent references to your "experiment", but have never actually described a systematic experimental procedure and a process in which you actually *prove* anything.

All one needs to do to reproduce our observations is obtain access to a deer shot through the chest with the same bullet at the same impact velocity and make some observations of wounding including:
1. Measuring the diameter of pulverized tissue along the wound channel
2. Measuring the diameter of hemorrhaged tissue around the entrance
3. Measuring the diameter of hemorrhaged tissue along the wound channel
4. Carefully looking for other hemorrhaged tissues in areas remote from the wound channel.

The above is simply a declaration, not a proof. You claim to be debating the merits of an experiment, yet shift the debate to physics no one has questioned.

My goal of the additional thread was to describe the physics, not to "shift the debate" which is why I began a new thread to describe the physics. I was quite willing to continue discussion of the wounding and its interpretation in the original thread.

Besides, what makes you think that if your results are different from those predicted by Fackler or whoever, than the mechanism of wounding is automatically different? You have so far neglected any mention of a null hypotheses, what kind of animals are you using, if deer, why your results seem to coincide with hunting season, how many deer you're using, what breed they are (wildtype, or engineered hybrid), references to any papers showing that deer wounding is a good model for human wounding, your experimental groups, your control, the p and power of each result, your rationale for using muzzleloaders to model centerfire handgun rounds, what calibers you are looking at and why, how you define "pulverized" tissue, how you actually measure the intensity of a pressure wave in live animals that are apparently free to run after being shot, your actual predictions of the pressure wave in a wound, the kind of equipment you are using

These are relevant questions and will be addressed in the published work. Answering every possible question of this type would require basically posting the complete paper, which is prevented by both practical considerations and our non-disclosure agreement. The paper is thousands of words long and contains figures and equations that are difficult to reproduce in this forum.

I will briefly address some of the issues you raise, but you are going to have to be patient and wait for the publication.

You have so far neglected any mention of a null hypotheses,

Not completely. We have pointed out observations with lower pressure wave projectiles fail to produce the effects we ascribe to the pressure wave. In specific, when we were asked how we know that the hemorrhaging is not caused by lung collapse, I answered that we observe very little hemorrhaging with broadhead arrows which deflate the lung but produce only a very small pressure wave. When asked how we know that the 10-20 lbs mammals are incapacitated by the pressure wave and not some other factor, I answered that we observe zero incapacitation when using a low-pressure wave bullet. There is more to say, of course.

You have so far neglected any mention of . . . why your results seem to coincide with hunting season

The original post in the other thread was clear as to why the observations reported coincide with hunting season. Didn't I write that the deer was shot during a special youth-only hunt? In light of this clear fact, it seems dishonest for you to write that I did not "mention . . . why your results seem to coincide with hunting season."

We are conducting these experiments on wild, free-ranging deer for several reasons:

1) This maximizes the opportunity for other researchers to repeat our work. Deer are abundant and widely available. In addition, the shooting of wild, free ranging deer is not covered by the animal research guidelines of the National Academy of Sciences which some have asserted prohibits the shooting of live, unanethetized animals in a laboratory setting.

2) One aspect of our work is to test the widely circulated hypothesis that the Strasbourg Goat Tests were a fraud. Using goats is much more expensive because of the the bureaucratic requirements and using goats would likely provoke a legal challenge (via the NAS guidelines), as well as provide a central, well-localized target for animal rights fanatics. We believe that deer are sufficiently similar to goats to allow us to test the hypothesis that the Strasbourg Goat Tests were a fraud.

your rationale for using muzzleloaders to model centerfire handgun rounds

We have developped techniques for shooting deer at a fixed, known range, but that range is not zero. This being the case, we needed a method to create an impact velocity in deer equal to the muzzle velocity of the load in a pistol. We also needed a method to reliably keep the shots in a small region comparable to the impact region used in the Strasbourg Goat Tests.

It is widely believed in the ballistics community that bullet performance doesn't depend on what it is fired from, only on the bullet itself and the impact velocity. We considered various options for getting the bullet to impact the test subject at a given range with great accuracy and the correct velocity. These included using longer barrels (such as Thompson Contender), moving up in cartridge volume (such as using a 10mm to test .40 S&W impact velocities), etc.

The most convenient approach seemed to be saboting the pistol bullets and shooting from a muzzleloader. A scoped muzzleloader can hit the target very accurately at ranges out to 100 yards. Using a chronograph, it is easy to develop loads to reproduce the proper impact velocity.

The muzzleloader also maximizes the ease of reproducing and extending our work by other researchers. Widely available sabots allow for testing .40, .429, and .451 caliber pistol bullets in a .50 caliber muzzleloader and .355, .357, and .40 caliber pistol bullets in a .45 caliber muzzleloader. With two muzzleloaders, any interested party can repeat and extend our work to every service cartridge except for the .41 magnum.

Using a muzzleloader provides an effective work-around for states whose laws prohibit handgun hunting completely, or prohibit handgun hunting with certain service calibers. It also extends the season in which testing can be conducted.

how you actually measure the intensity of a pressure wave in live animals that are apparently free to run after being shot, your actual predictions of the pressure wave in a wound

In the initial post of this thread, I made the case that the peak pressure wave magnitude can be reasonably estimated from the kinetic energy, the fraction of lost mass, and the penetration depth. You have acknowledged that this description of the Physics is valid, and this description includes predictions for the pressure wave magnitude in a wound. The accuracy of these estimates can be also be confirmed by instrumenting ballistic gelatin with a PZT-based high speed pressure gauge.

We are developping acoustic techniques for detecting the pressure wave in the test subject. we don't believe that these acoustic techniques will be more accurate than our current estimates for peak pressure magnitude. However, these acoustic techniques will be useful for detecting the spread of the wave as it moves through the test subject, understanding the isotropy of the wave, better understanding the frequency spectrum and velocity of different components of the wave, and better understanding the wave dynamics as the wave reflects around in the thoracic cavity.

how you will to continue to work at your apparently anti-gun college after your paper is published

I fully realize that I might be fired. I considered waiting for tenure prior to going public with my involvement in this project, but then I decided that the need to publish sooner outweighed my professional considerations, and that if the college wanted to fire me, it was probably best to move on. I am fully prepared to seek employment at a new institution that will allow me to continue with this work.

how you will be free from the scourge of animal rights activists *after* your work is published, etc., etc.

We have a very careful plan in place. I have mentioned that we expect that live animal experiments will be forced to stop for some time after publication, and we have prepared for this by planning work that does not involve live animal experiments. I have described these researh ideas previously when I wrote about the internal ballistics, external ballistics, and forensic ballistics projects we have planned. However, the effectiveness of other aspects of our plan depends on our plans remaining private.

You claim to be a scientist, make repeated mention of your qualifications

Including how to verify my previous publications on wave dynamics and statistics in the peer-reviewed journals.

You invite others to reproduce your work, and yet have not described how to do so systematically.

Repeating the observations from the 135 grain .40 caliber Nosler JHP impacting at 1350 really isn't that complicated.

In addition, when we've been contacted privately by researchers intent on performing similar work, we have communicated substantial details of our work beyond what I've written here. We have reviewed the experimental designs of other groups and made suggestions on how to ensure their results can be compared with ours.

Michael Courtney

 

[Shear_stress]

These are relevant questions and will be addressed in the published work.

Okay, you and I do agree on something. Please give the journal in which the work will be published and a publication date. I look forward to reading the completed work.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Okay, you and I do agree on something. Please give the journal in which the work will be published and a publication date. I look forward to reading the completed work.

This, of course, can only be done after we have received a committment from a periodical to publish on a specified date.

Michael Courtney

 

[Shear_stress]

Have a nice day.

 

[Boiler_G]

Viscous Flows

Navier Stokes .... shock-boundary layer interaction ... let's bust out the Fortran and run some code already! I have a nice one from the 80's for 2D conical sections in the hypersonic regime!

Interesting discussion.

- Fellow EngiNerd (Purdue)

 

[P95Carry]

Many opinions expressed and facts presented and I think at this stage the thread has run its course. Further exposure will probably only reveal repetition and back biting.

A lot of material is available to be referenced and considered but the tenor of the posts has in some cases become more than strained. The subject is obviously contentious for some, understandable but time to give this a rest.